FIG. 1 illustrates a portion of the human spine having a superior vertebra 2 and an inferior vertebra 4, with an intervertebral disc 6 located in between the two vertebral bodies. The superior vertebra 2 has superior facet joints 8a and 8b, inferior facet joints 10a and 10b, and spinous process 18. Pedicles 3a and 3b interconnect the respective superior facet joints a, 8b to the vertebral body 2. Extending laterally from superior facet joints 8a, 8b are transverse processes 7a and 7b, respectively. Extending between each inferior facet joints 10a and 10b and the spinous process 18 are laminal zones 5a and 5b, respectively. Similarly, inferior vertebra 4 has superior facet joints 12a and 12b, superior pedicles 9a and 9b, transverse processes 11a and 11b, inferior facet joints 14a and 14b, laminal zones 15a and 15b, and spinous process 22.
The superior vertebra with its inferior facets, the inferior vertebra with its superior facet joints, the intervertebral disc, and seven spinal ligaments (not shown) extending between the superior and inferior vertebrae together comprise a spinal motion segment or functional spine unit. Collectively, the facet joints, laminas and spinal processes comprise the “posterior element” (or a portion thereof) of a spinal motion segment. Each spinal motion segment enables motion along three orthogonal axes, both in rotation and in translation. The various spinal motions are illustrated in FIGS. 2A-2C. In particular, FIG. 2A illustrates flexion and extension motions and axial loading, FIG. 2B illustrates lateral bending motion and FIG. 2C illustrated axial rotational motion. A normally functioning spinal motion segment provides physiological limits and stiffness in each rotational and translational direction to create a stable and strong column structure to support physiological loads.
Traumatic, inflammatory, metabolic, synovial, neoplastic and degenerative disorders of the spine can produce debilitating pain that can affect a spinal motion segment's ability to properly function. The specific location or source of spinal pain is most often an affected intervertebral disc or facet joint. Often, a disorder in one location or spinal component can lead to eventual deterioration or disorder, and ultimately, pain in the other.
Spine fusion (arthrodesis) is a procedure in which two or more adjacent vertebral bodies are fused together. It is one of the most common approaches to alleviating various types of spinal pain, particularly pain associated with one or more affected intervertebral discs. While spine fusion generally helps to eliminate certain types of pain, it has been shown to decrease function by limiting the range of motion for patients in flexion, extension, rotation and lateral bending. Furthermore, the fusion creates increased stresses on adjacent non-fused motion segments and accelerated degeneration of the motion segments. Additionally, pseudarthrosis (resulting from an incomplete or ineffective fusion) may not provide the expected pain-relief for the patient. Also, the device(s) used for fusion, whether artificial or biological, may migrate out of the fusion site creating significant new problems for the patient.
Various technologies and approaches have been developed to treat spinal pain without fusion in order to maintain or recreate the natural biomechanics of the spine. To this end, significant efforts are being made in the use of implantable artificial intervertebral discs. Artificial discs are intended to restore articulation between vertebral bodies so as to recreate the full range of motion normally allowed by the elastic properties of the natural disc. Unfortunately, the currently available artificial discs do not adequately address all of the motion mechanics of the spinal column.
It has been found that the facet joints can also be a significant source of spinal disorders and debilitating pain. For example, a patient may suffer from arthritic facet joints, severe facet joint tropism, otherwise deformed facet joints, facet joint injuries, etc. These disorders lead to spinal stenosis, degenerative spondylolithesis, and/or isthmic spondylotlisthesis, pinching the nerves that extend between the affected vertebrae.
Current interventions for the treatment of facet joint disorders have not been found to provide completely successful results. Facetectomy (removal of the facet joints) may provide some pain relief; but as the facet joints help to support axial, torsional, and shear loads that act on the spinal column in addition to providing a sliding articulation and mechanism for load transmission, their removal inhibits natural spinal function. Laminectomy (removal of the lamina, including the spinal arch and the spinous process) may also provide pain relief associated with facet joint disorders; however, the spine is made less stable and subject to hypermobility. Problems with the facet joints can also complicate treatments associated with other portions of the spine. In fact, contraindications for disc replacement include arthritic facet joints, absent facet joints, severe facet joint tropism, or otherwise deformed facet joints due to the inability of the artificial disc (when used with compromised or missing facet joints) to properly restore the natural biomechanics of the spinal motion segment.
While various attempts have been made at facet joint replacement, they have been inadequate. This is due to the fact that prosthetic facet joints preserve existing bony structures and therefore do not address pathologies that affect facet joints themselves. Certain facet joint prostheses, such as those disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,132,464, are intended to be supported on the lamina or the posterior arch. As the lamina is a very complex and highly variable anatomical structure, it is very difficult to design a prosthesis that provides reproducible positioning against the lamina to correctly locate the prosthetic facet joints. In addition, when facet joint replacement involves complete removal and replacement of the natural facet joint, as disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,579,319, the prosthesis is unlikely to endure the loads and cycling experienced by the vertebra. Thus, the facet joint replacement may be subject to long-term displacement. Furthermore, when facet joint disorders are accompanied by disease or trauma to other structures of a vertebra (such as the lamina, spinous process, and/or transverse processes) facet joint replacement is insufficient to treat the problem(s).
Most recently, surgical-based technologies, referred to as “dynamic posterior stabilization,” have been developed to address spinal pain resulting from more than one disorder, when more than one structure of the spine have been compromised. An objective of such technologies is to provide the support of fusion-based implants while maximizing the natural biomechanics of the spine. Dynamic posterior stabilization systems typically fall into one of two general categories: posterior pedicle screw-based systems and interspinous spacers.
Examples of pedicle screw-based systems are disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,015,247, 5,484,437, 5,489,308, 5,609,636, 5,658,337, 5,741,253, 6,080,155, 6,096,038, 6,264,656 and 6,270,498. These types of systems involve the use of screws that are positioned in the vertebral body through the pedicle. Certain types of these pedicle screw-based systems may be used to augment compromised facet joints, while others require removal of the spinous process and/or the facet joints for implantation. One such system, the Zimmer Spine Dynesys® employs a cord which is extended between the pedicle screws and a fairly rigid spacer which is passed over the cord and positioned between the screws. While this system is able to provide load sharing and restoration of disc height, because it is so rigid, it does not effective in preserving the natural motion of the spinal segment into which it is implanted. Other pedicle screw-based systems employ articulating joints between the pedicle screws. Because these types of systems require the use of pedicle screws, implantation of the systems are often more invasive to implant than interspinous spacers.
Where the level of disability or pain to the affected spinal motion segments is not that severe or where the condition, such as an injury, is not chronic, the use of interspinous spacers are preferred over pedicle based systems as they require a less invasive implantation approach and less dissection of the surrounding tissue and ligaments. Examples of interspinous spacers are disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. Re. 36,211, U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,645,599, 6,149,642, 6,500,178, 6,695,842, 6,716,245 and 6,761,720. The spacers, which are made of either a hard or compliant material, are placed in between adjacent spinous processes. The harder material spacers are fixed in place by means of the opposing force caused by distracting the affected spinal segment and/or by use of keels or screws that anchor into the spinous process. While slightly less invasive than the procedures required for implanting a pedicle screw-based dynamic stabilization system, implantation of hard or solid interspinous spacers still requires dissection of muscle tissue and of the supraspinous and interspinous ligaments. Additionally, these tend to facilitate spinal motion that is less analogous to the natural spinal motion than do the more compliant and flexible interspinous spacers. Another advantage of the compliant/flexible interspinous spacers is the ability to deliver them somewhat less invasively than those that are not compliant or flexible; however, their compliancy makes them more susceptible to displacement or migration over time. To obviate this risk, many of these spacers employ straps or the like that are wrapped around the spinous processes of the vertebrae above and below the level where the spacer is implanted. Of course, this requires some additional tissue and ligament dissection superior and inferior to the implant site, i.e., at least within the adjacent interspinous spaces.
With the limitations of current spine stabilization technologies, there is clearly a need for an improved means and method for dynamic posterior stabilization of the spine and/or for treating scoliosis, which means and method address the drawbacks of prior devices. In particular, it would be highly beneficial to have a dynamic stabilization system that involves a minimally invasive implantation procedure, where the extent of distraction between the affected vertebrae is adjustable upon implantation and at a later time if necessary. It would be additionally advantageous if the system or device was also removable in a minimally invasive manner as well as obviated any risk of migration from the original implant site.